This makes no sense. This use would be so trivial as to be a complete waste of talent, time and money. If this is, instead just a way to get experience, then it could be useful, but the article doesn’t seem to be saying that.
i also have strong doubts that Apple could have a wide success with a real CarOS. There are several entrenched competitors in this field. And yes, I know that Apple has faced entrenched industries before. But it really needs to be remembered that Apple made its success in those industries with software based hardware, not just software. Why would car makers want Apple’s OS? If Apple is as restrictive about sending info back to the car makers as they are with other clients, such as the Ad agencies, then the car makers will have the same reaction. Which is to move away. And if Apple doesn’t, then Apple will lose its voice as the holder of privacy for its customers.
So without an actual vehicle for this OS effort, I don’t see it going anywhere, unless fleets take a shine to it, and that seems very un Apple-like.
Reading the article it seemed as though there were team members wanting to reinvent the automobile and then reality set in and Bob Mansfield was brought in to bring the project back down to earth. But I don’t see how it goes anywhere unless Apple eventually develops its own vehicle.
EDIT: John Gruber had his own take (which sounds like he might have heard some things from employees):
“Shelved” is an accurate word, but I think many people have interpreted it as meaning that Apple has given up on designing its own vehicles. My understanding is that it’s more like “Let’s get the autonomous shit down first, and worry about designing vehicles to put it in after that.” Eat the steak one bite at a time rather than all at once.
This makes the most sense. If you don’t have the software nailed there’s really no point to a car.
I can basically agree with that. But as someone who has developed a fair amount of hardware, and done software development as well, I can say that if you are intending to do a major hardware project, such as a car, you need years of lead time for the hardware. It’s been said that it would take Apple at least four years, and likely five, to develop a commercially viable vehicle.
the only thing I can think of is that if Apple is still intending to do that that it would be with a company such as Magna Steyr. Apple has been working with them, and has had a lot of their engineers on this project.
It bothers me when people compare this to Nokia and RIM and use that “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote. There is no comparison. Building an autonomous/self-driving vehicle is WAY more complicated than building a computer for your pocket.
You just used the “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote.
If it’s impossible for Apple then how is Tesla, Google, Uber and many others able to work on this? Why is t not possible for Apple, but possible for everyone else?
Google isn't building a car either Soli, realizing a couple years ago that partnering with automakers and looking into ride-sharing as a service was the better way to monetize it. I believe that's one reason why several automakers are suddenly willing to work with Google in the past year or so, not worrying so much anymore that they are positioning themselves as a competing carmaker.
If the industry sees Apple as trying to steal their customers and kill their business they'll stop cooperating with them. That they haven't seems evidence that the carmakers don't believe Apple still plans a car either and they'd probably know better than any of us since engineers and managers move around so much. Just my opinion of course, and mine holds no more weight than yours so feel free to ignore it.
I do t think that Google was ever interested in making a car for a very simple,e reason. Everything Google does, whether a service, a product they do themselves, or a company they buy, is devoted to getting user information that they can use for their advertisers. Everything. They don’t make their own phones or tablets, because the ROI on those is too low. So they hand them off to other companies who design them and make them. Google’s input is very minor except for native Android on the devices. They sell in small numbers, because they’re really not great devices, usually.
a car is far worse. There is no way they could ever retrieve their investments making cars. And that retrieval is mostly the customermdata they would derive from it. They are not a real hardware maker. The only successful hardware they make costs less than $50, and no doubt is sold for a loss.
but Apple is a hardware makers, one of the largest in the world. It’s where they lake their money from. App,EU knows hardware. They know when it’s too complex as well, as possibly this project is right now. They haven’t fully committed. We don’t know where they’re going with this long term, but both Williams and Cook have indicated their very serious interest.
i can’t see Apple developing autonomous software just for the purpose of selling it. That really makes no sense. Your last paragraph makes no sense either
Last paragraph makes no sense to you? And that's coming from a former business owner that no doubt had worked with outside companies when you were younger? Sure you understand it.
It makes no sense, because I was a business owner, and actually know how it works, as opposed to someone who apparently wasn’t a business owner, and so doesn’t know how it works.
in all industries, competing companies make parts and assemblies for direct competitors. I find it truly hard to believe that you don’t seem to be aware of that fact. Where have you been all this time? Don’t you know that Samsung will be selling Apple about $15 billion in parts next year? Oh wait, you’re right, they’re not in the same industry, and aren’t competitors in any areas.
That’s not right. Every company is required to prove that they can produce what they claim, which is why many don’t make a claim. Every time Apple doesn’t meat expectations in sales, they get hammered, and they didn’t even claim some number. If a company make a claim, and doesn’t meet it, they get hammered. Tesla made a claim, if they can’t prove they they can meet that claim, by actually doing so, they will get hammered. Much of the price of their stock right has this 500,000 number built into the current, and future stock price. If they can only build 300,000 next year, that amount will be ripped,out of the price.
the reason he’s offering some of the worst junk bonds in history is because he’s desperate for cash. And this also shows why conservatives are always wrong about big tax breaks for these exceedingly wealthy individuals. If he wanted to, he could take some of that wealth he’s gotten from owning a large share of his companies stock, and financed it himself right now, without those bonds, or just bought the bonds up,himself. But people like that almost never invest their own money in their companies that way.
Again, why does Tesla have to produce x-number of vehicles but other automobile companies don't? You people on this forum have been claiming Tesla is going to go under any day now since he first announced the Roadster. A fast EV is impossible blah blah blah. It's just a money grab from a shyster Yada yada yada. Now we're on their 4th car and they've created a massive and growing factory or the Model 3 and batteries. Why does no other automobile company get this sort of scrutiny or derision for having rapid growth and success? I'd think you'd be happy to see a new company and blow out expectations like Apple, to see a company that is doing what was deemed impossible, and yet all you can do is sound like any anti-Apple pundit by claiming that their success is going to end any day. I wouldn't be surprised if you've already said: I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."
All good points. Tesla has done well so far despite all the noise from the naysayers.
Few of the naysayers are stating that Tesla won't survive; lots of them are stating that Tesla has a billion dollar a quarter burn rate that isn't sustainable if they don't meet their own stated production targets. Another issue is whether the BOM for the Model 3 will allow Tesla to make a profit at $35,000, even with add ons. Adding to the looming crisis is that Tesla's 200,000 tax credits will, in theory, be gone by mid next year. Then what happens to sales, especially if there is a downturn in the economy? Is Tesla as prepared as Nissan is? I'm seeing lots of European cars, including EV models, competing well against the Model S without tax credits next year,
I know workers at the Gigafactory; battery production isn't anywhere near fully ramped to meet Model 3 production targets. I would be surprised if Tesla gets anywhere close to the 5000 Model 3 delivers a month by the end of the year that Elon has publicly stated. They had only produced 30 Model 3's as customer cars as of the end of last month. People love Elon's story, and the brand awareness is astronomical, but I'm not sure that even current Tesla owners will be so forgiving of Elon if he doesn't deliver on time, and doesn't produce a reliable product, all past problems that early adopters were more than happy to absorb. I have no interest in a Tesla purchase or of stock ownership, but Tesla is a big part of our overheated economy in Northern Nevada, so as a naysayer, I would say to Tesla, "get your shit together:" So, this is one of the naysayers that I follow... https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer and one more
That’s not right. Every company is required to prove that they can produce what they claim, which is why many don’t make a claim. Every time Apple doesn’t meat expectations in sales, they get hammered, and they didn’t even claim some number. If a company make a claim, and doesn’t meet it, they get hammered. Tesla made a claim, if they can’t prove they they can meet that claim, by actually doing so, they will get hammered. Much of the price of their stock right has this 500,000 number built into the current, and future stock price. If they can only build 300,000 next year, that amount will be ripped,out of the price.
the reason he’s offering some of the worst junk bonds in history is because he’s desperate for cash. And this also shows why conservatives are always wrong about big tax breaks for these exceedingly wealthy individuals. If he wanted to, he could take some of that wealth he’s gotten from owning a large share of his companies stock, and financed it himself right now, without those bonds, or just bought the bonds up,himself. But people like that almost never invest their own money in their companies that way.
Again, why does Tesla have to produce x-number of vehicles but other automobile companies don't? You people on this forum have been claiming Tesla is going to go under any day now since he first announced the Roadster. A fast EV is impossible blah blah blah. It's just a money grab from a shyster Yada yada yada. Now we're on their 4th car and they've created a massive and growing factory or the Model 3 and batteries. Why does no other automobile company get this sort of scrutiny or derision for having rapid growth and success? I'd think you'd be happy to see a new company and blow out expectations like Apple, to see a company that is doing what was deemed impossible, and yet all you can do is sound like any anti-Apple pundit by claiming that their success is going to end any day. I wouldn't be surprised if you've already said: I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."
Because, if you haven’t been following this, Tesla, unlike most other companies, has made a VERY big deal about increasing their manufacturing from about 50,000 cars a year, which they’ve had problems meeting, to 500,000 cars a year in 2018. Nobody in the industry believes that they can make that goal. Investors are blinded by Musk, as a personality, as many Apple users and investors had been over the years. The difference is that Apple’s goals were more easily achievable, because as they grew, they had the worlds larges contractors actually assemble their products.
tesla bought an old plant for this, and had to entirely gut it. But the time they got the plant half ready, they were already almost a year behind schedule. The model 3 also has had a lot of development problems, which are continuing. The batteries have been having serious manufacturing problems too. And the software has been soundly criticized.
the problem here is that Tesla has always lost very large amounts of money each year, and it continues to lose very large amounts. With the model 3, they are now losing even more. The biggest question with Tesla is not how big it will get, but whether is will survive at all. Soon, the environmental rebates will cease. How will that affect their sales? That’s another question. The fact that they are already so far behind schedule has prompted Tesla to enter what has become a controversial practice of trying to upgrade model 3 prepaid customers to the sports model at twice the price, offering them an $8,000 rebate to do so, which leaves the base price $70,000 vehicle still much more expensive than the bae $35,000 vehicle, but which is angering the people who are buying the higher price product as their actual choice. All because they as so far behind in production, and QC.
so, yes, they screwed up. They thought they could accept $1,000 checks from people befor product was anywhere near ready to even start production, and had received over 400,000 checks, with the surety that they would receive their car in 2018. Now that it looks as though many won’t, there’s a lawsuit. And they continue to accept new $1,000 checks.
you sarcasm isn’t needed, or appreciated. What Dell said was an off the cuff remark made by an arrogant individual at the height of success for Dell, and the nadir of Apple’s fortunes. He was asked that question by a reporter. It has nothing to do with this issue.
tesla hasn’t gotten the scrutiny that you think it has, and every other car maker has received far more. That’s why Tesla’s stock is vastly overpriced when compared to far larger, and more successful manufacturers in the industry.
That’s not right. Every company is required to prove that they can produce what they claim, which is why many don’t make a claim. Every time Apple doesn’t meat expectations in sales, they get hammered, and they didn’t even claim some number. If a company make a claim, and doesn’t meet it, they get hammered. Tesla made a claim, if they can’t prove they they can meet that claim, by actually doing so, they will get hammered. Much of the price of their stock right has this 500,000 number built into the current, and future stock price. If they can only build 300,000 next year, that amount will be ripped,out of the price.
the reason he’s offering some of the worst junk bonds in history is because he’s desperate for cash. And this also shows why conservatives are always wrong about big tax breaks for these exceedingly wealthy individuals. If he wanted to, he could take some of that wealth he’s gotten from owning a large share of his companies stock, and financed it himself right now, without those bonds, or just bought the bonds up,himself. But people like that almost never invest their own money in their companies that way.
Again, why does Tesla have to produce x-number of vehicles but other automobile companies don't? You people on this forum have been claiming Tesla is going to go under any day now since he first announced the Roadster. A fast EV is impossible blah blah blah. It's just a money grab from a shyster Yada yada yada. Now we're on their 4th car and they've created a massive and growing factory or the Model 3 and batteries. Why does no other automobile company get this sort of scrutiny or derision for having rapid growth and success? I'd think you'd be happy to see a new company and blow out expectations like Apple, to see a company that is doing what was deemed impossible, and yet all you can do is sound like any anti-Apple pundit by claiming that their success is going to end any day. I wouldn't be surprised if you've already said: I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."
All good points. Tesla has done well so far despite all the noise from the naysayers.
Every time there's a rumor that Apple might enter some new field a few fans start a scorched earth effort decrying how horrid the sometimes previously-praised companies already in that space are and predicting their demise. I think oft-times it has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality or worthiness of other companies and their products but instead fan cheer-leading for Apple to take all the profits out of another industry segment and seize it for themselves. Bigger isn't always better.
How well, exactly, has Tesla done? What are their sales and profits, for example? And compared to what?
This makes no sense. This use would be so trivial as to be a complete waste of talent, time and money. If this is, instead just a way to get experience, then it could be useful, but the article doesn’t seem to be saying that.
i also have strong doubts that Apple could have a wide success with a real CarOS. There are several entrenched competitors in this field. And yes, I know that Apple has faced entrenched industries before. But it really needs to be remembered that Apple made its success in those industries with software based hardware, not just software. Why would car makers want Apple’s OS? If Apple is as restrictive about sending info back to the car makers as they are with other clients, such as the Ad agencies, then the car makers will have the same reaction. Which is to move away. And if Apple doesn’t, then Apple will lose its voice as the holder of privacy for its customers.
So without an actual vehicle for this OS effort, I don’t see it going anywhere, unless fleets take a shine to it, and that seems very un Apple-like.
Reading the article it seemed as though there were team members wanting to reinvent the automobile and then reality set in and Bob Mansfield was brought in to bring the project back down to earth. But I don’t see how it goes anywhere unless Apple eventually develops its own vehicle.
EDIT: John Gruber had his own take (which sounds like he might have heard some things from employees):
“Shelved” is an accurate word, but I think many people have interpreted it as meaning that Apple has given up on designing its own vehicles. My understanding is that it’s more like “Let’s get the autonomous shit down first, and worry about designing vehicles to put it in after that.” Eat the steak one bite at a time rather than all at once.
This makes the most sense. If you don’t have the software nailed there’s really no point to a car.
I can basically agree with that. But as someone who has developed a fair amount of hardware, and done software development as well, I can say that if you are intending to do a major hardware project, such as a car, you need years of lead time for the hardware. It’s been said that it would take Apple at least four years, and likely five, to develop a commercially viable vehicle.
the only thing I can think of is that if Apple is still intending to do that that it would be with a company such as Magna Steyr. Apple has been working with them, and has had a lot of their engineers on this project.
It bothers me when people compare this to Nokia and RIM and use that “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote. There is no comparison. Building an autonomous/self-driving vehicle is WAY more complicated than building a computer for your pocket.
You just used the “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote.
If it’s impossible for Apple then how is Tesla, Google, Uber and many others able to work on this? Why is t not possible for Apple, but possible for everyone else?
Google isn't building a car either Soli, realizing a couple years ago that partnering with automakers and looking into ride-sharing as a service was the better way to monetize it. I believe that's one reason why several automakers are suddenly willing to work with Google in the past year or so, not worrying so much anymore that they are positioning themselves as a competing carmaker.
If the industry sees Apple as trying to steal their customers and kill their business they'll stop cooperating with them. That they haven't seems evidence that the carmakers don't believe Apple still plans a car either and they'd probably know better than any of us since engineers and managers move around so much. Just my opinion of course, and mine holds no more weight than yours so feel free to ignore it.
I do t think that Google was ever interested in making a car for a very simple,e reason. Everything Google does, whether a service, a product they do themselves, or a company they buy, is devoted to getting user information that they can use for their advertisers. Everything. They don’t make their own phones or tablets, because the ROI on those is too low. So they hand them off to other companies who design them and make them. Google’s input is very minor except for native Android on the devices. They sell in small numbers, because they’re really not great devices, usually.
a car is far worse. There is no way they could ever retrieve their investments making cars. And that retrieval is mostly the customermdata they would derive from it. They are not a real hardware maker. The only successful hardware they make costs less than $50, and no doubt is sold for a loss.
but Apple is a hardware makers, one of the largest in the world. It’s where they lake their money from. App,EU knows hardware. They know when it’s too complex as well, as possibly this project is right now. They haven’t fully committed. We don’t know where they’re going with this long term, but both Williams and Cook have indicated their very serious interest.
i can’t see Apple developing autonomous software just for the purpose of selling it. That really makes no sense. Your last paragraph makes no sense either
Last paragraph makes no sense to you? And that's coming from a former business owner that no doubt had worked with outside companies when you were younger? Sure you understand it.
It makes no sense, because I was a business owner, and actually know how it works, as opposed to someone who apparently wasn’t a business owner, and so doesn’t know how it works.
in all industries, competing companies make parts and assemblies for direct competitors. I find it truly hard to believe that you don’t seem to be aware of that fact. Where have you been all this time? Don’t you know that Samsung will be selling Apple about $15 billion in parts next year? Oh wait, you’re right, they’re not in the same industry, and aren’t competitors in any areas.
Oh geez, are you now going to pretend you don't know the difference between a profitable mutually-beneficial business arrangement and one company actively trying to put the other out of business by making it unprofitable for them to continue? At the point auto manufacturers (or even ride-hailing companies) believe that Apple intends to compete with them and destroy their ability to make a profit they will not be cooperating with Apple, nor promoting Apple services.
There's a reason Apple is finding it to be a tough go making friends and forming partnerships in the movie and tv industry. Those companies have seen what happened in the past and are much less likely to cooperate with it happening again.
That’s not right. Every company is required to prove that they can produce what they claim, which is why many don’t make a claim. Every time Apple doesn’t meat expectations in sales, they get hammered, and they didn’t even claim some number. If a company make a claim, and doesn’t meet it, they get hammered. Tesla made a claim, if they can’t prove they they can meet that claim, by actually doing so, they will get hammered. Much of the price of their stock right has this 500,000 number built into the current, and future stock price. If they can only build 300,000 next year, that amount will be ripped,out of the price.
the reason he’s offering some of the worst junk bonds in history is because he’s desperate for cash. And this also shows why conservatives are always wrong about big tax breaks for these exceedingly wealthy individuals. If he wanted to, he could take some of that wealth he’s gotten from owning a large share of his companies stock, and financed it himself right now, without those bonds, or just bought the bonds up,himself. But people like that almost never invest their own money in their companies that way.
Again, why does Tesla have to produce x-number of vehicles but other automobile companies don't? You people on this forum have been claiming Tesla is going to go under any day now since he first announced the Roadster. A fast EV is impossible blah blah blah. It's just a money grab from a shyster Yada yada yada. Now we're on their 4th car and they've created a massive and growing factory or the Model 3 and batteries. Why does no other automobile company get this sort of scrutiny or derision for having rapid growth and success? I'd think you'd be happy to see a new company and blow out expectations like Apple, to see a company that is doing what was deemed impossible, and yet all you can do is sound like any anti-Apple pundit by claiming that their success is going to end any day. I wouldn't be surprised if you've already said: I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."
Because, if you haven’t been following this, Tesla, unlike most other companies, has made a VERY big deal about increasing their manufacturing from about 50,000 cars a year, which they’ve had problems meeting, to 500,000 cars a year in 2018. Nobody in the industry believes that they can make that goal. Investors are blinded by Musk, as a personality, as many Apple users and investors had been over the years. The difference is that Apple’s goals were more easily achievable, because as they grew, they had the worlds larges contractors actually assemble their products.
tesla bought an old plant for this, and had to entirely gut it. But the time they got the plant half ready, they were already almost a year behind schedule. The model 3 also has had a lot of development problems, which are continuing. The batteries have been having serious manufacturing problems too. And the software has been soundly criticized.
the problem here is that Tesla has always lost very large amounts of money each year, and it continues to lose very large amounts. With the model 3, they are now losing even more. The biggest question with Tesla is not how big it will get, but whether is will survive at all. Soon, the environmental rebates will cease. How will that affect their sales? That’s another question. The fact that they are already so far behind schedule has prompted Tesla to enter what has become a controversial practice of trying to upgrade model 3 prepaid customers to the sports model at twice the price, offering them an $8,000 rebate to do so, which leaves the base price $70,000 vehicle still much more expensive than the bae $35,000 vehicle, but which is angering the people who are buying the higher price product as their actual choice. All because they as so far behind in production, and QC.
so, yes, they screwed up. They thought they could accept $1,000 checks from people befor product was anywhere near ready to even start production, and had received over 400,000 checks, with the surety that they would receive their car in 2018. Now that it looks as though many won’t, there’s a lawsuit. And they continue to accept new $1,000 checks.
you sarcasm isn’t needed, or appreciated. What Dell said was an off the cuff remark made by an arrogant individual at the height of success for Dell, and the nadir of Apple’s fortunes. He was asked that question by a reporter. It has nothing to do with this issue.
tesla hasn’t gotten the scrutiny that you think it has, and every other car maker has received far more. That’s why Tesla’s stock is vastly overpriced when compared to far larger, and more successful manufacturers in the industry.
Because, if you haven’t been following this, Tesla, unlike most other companies, has made a VERY big deal about increasing their manufacturing from about 50,000 cars a year, which they’ve had problems meeting, to 500,000 cars a year in 2018. Nobody in the industry believes that they can make that goal. Investors are blinded by Musk, as a personality, as many Apple users and investors had been over the years. The difference is that Apple’s goals were more easily achievable, because as they grew, they had the worlds larges contractors actually assemble their products.
tesla bought an old plant for this, and had to entirely gut it. But the time they got the plant half ready, they were already almost a year behind schedule. The model 3 also has had a lot of development problems, which are continuing. The batteries have been having serious manufacturing problems too. And the software has been soundly criticized.
the problem here is that Tesla has always lost very large amounts of money each year, and it continues to lose very large amounts. With the model 3, they are now losing even more. The biggest question with Tesla is not how big it will get, but whether is will survive at all. Soon, the environmental rebates will cease. How will that affect their sales? That’s another question. The fact that they are already so far behind schedule has prompted Tesla to enter what has become a controversial practice of trying to upgrade model 3 prepaid customers to the sports model at twice the price, offering them an $8,000 rebate to do so, which leaves the base price $70,000 vehicle still much more expensive than the bae $35,000 vehicle, but which is angering the people who are buying the higher price product as their actual choice. All because they as so far behind in production, and QC.
so, yes, they screwed up. They thought they could accept $1,000 checks from people befor product was anywhere near ready to even start production, and had received over 400,000 checks, with the surety that they would receive their car in 2018. Now that it looks as though many won’t, there’s a lawsuit. And they continue to accept new $1,000 checks.
you sarcasm isn’t needed, or appreciated. What Dell said was an off the cuff remark made by an arrogant individual at the height of success for Dell, and the nadir of Apple’s fortunes. He was asked that question by a reporter. It has nothing to do with this issue.
tesla hasn’t gotten the scrutiny that you think it has, and every other car maker has received far more. That’s why Tesla’s stock is vastly overpriced when compared to far larger, and more successful manufacturers in the industry.
1) I have to assume this isn't the first time you've slammed Tesla and Musk for stating a goal and working to go after it, yet they've met their goals in the past. Did you say you were wrong then, or are you claiming that all their previous goals were doable but this current one will sink the company because it's impossible to meet?
2) The Michael Dell and anti-Apple pundit commits fit your narrative quite well.
3) You seem to have a deep seeded anger toward Musk. Why is that? Is this simply because they haven't adopted CarPlay, because he's successful, or something else? Amazon has spent most of its existence never turning a profit, and when they do it's barely in the black, yet I don't recall a single comment from you that Amazon was going to close up, biting off more than they can chew by expanding, or even a pejorative statement about Bezos.
Because, if you haven’t been following this, Tesla, unlike most other companies, has made a VERY big deal about increasing their manufacturing from about 50,000 cars a year, which they’ve had problems meeting, to 500,000 cars a year in 2018. Nobody in the industry believes that they can make that goal. Investors are blinded by Musk, as a personality, as many Apple users and investors had been over the years. The difference is that Apple’s goals were more easily achievable, because as they grew, they had the worlds larges contractors actually assemble their products.
tesla bought an old plant for this, and had to entirely gut it. But the time they got the plant half ready, they were already almost a year behind schedule. The model 3 also has had a lot of development problems, which are continuing. The batteries have been having serious manufacturing problems too. And the software has been soundly criticized.
the problem here is that Tesla has always lost very large amounts of money each year, and it continues to lose very large amounts. With the model 3, they are now losing even more. The biggest question with Tesla is not how big it will get, but whether is will survive at all. Soon, the environmental rebates will cease. How will that affect their sales? That’s another question. The fact that they are already so far behind schedule has prompted Tesla to enter what has become a controversial practice of trying to upgrade model 3 prepaid customers to the sports model at twice the price, offering them an $8,000 rebate to do so, which leaves the base price $70,000 vehicle still much more expensive than the bae $35,000 vehicle, but which is angering the people who are buying the higher price product as their actual choice. All because they as so far behind in production, and QC.
so, yes, they screwed up. They thought they could accept $1,000 checks from people befor product was anywhere near ready to even start production, and had received over 400,000 checks, with the surety that they would receive their car in 2018. Now that it looks as though many won’t, there’s a lawsuit. And they continue to accept new $1,000 checks.
you sarcasm isn’t needed, or appreciated. What Dell said was an off the cuff remark made by an arrogant individual at the height of success for Dell, and the nadir of Apple’s fortunes. He was asked that question by a reporter. It has nothing to do with this issue.
tesla hasn’t gotten the scrutiny that you think it has, and every other car maker has received far more. That’s why Tesla’s stock is vastly overpriced when compared to far larger, and more successful manufacturers in the industry.
1) I have to assume this isn't the first time you've slammed Tesla and Musk for stating a goal and working to go after it, yet they've met their goals in the past. Did you say you were wrong then, or are you claiming that all their previous goals were doable but this current one will sink the company because it's impossible to meet?
2) The Michael Dell and anti-Apple pundit commits fit your narrative quite well.
3) You seem to have a deep seeded anger toward Musk. Why is that? Is this simply because they haven't adopted CarPlay, because he's successful, or something else? Amazon has spent most of its existence never turning a profit, and when they do it's barely in the black, yet I don't recall a single comment from you that Amazon was going to close up, biting off more than they can chew by expanding, or even a pejorative statement about Bezos.
Facts are biased, and are easily confirmed on the internet "yet they have met their goals in the past" is not the same as on time and at cost.
"Elon is King in the country of Moving Goalposts that the River Denial flows through", is not the same as "deep seated anger", so I'm guessing we're still cool?
Because, if you haven’t been following this, Tesla, unlike most other companies, has made a VERY big deal about increasing their manufacturing from about 50,000 cars a year, which they’ve had problems meeting, to 500,000 cars a year in 2018. Nobody in the industry believes that they can make that goal. Investors are blinded by Musk, as a personality, as many Apple users and investors had been over the years. The difference is that Apple’s goals were more easily achievable, because as they grew, they had the worlds larges contractors actually assemble their products.
tesla bought an old plant for this, and had to entirely gut it. But the time they got the plant half ready, they were already almost a year behind schedule. The model 3 also has had a lot of development problems, which are continuing. The batteries have been having serious manufacturing problems too. And the software has been soundly criticized.
the problem here is that Tesla has always lost very large amounts of money each year, and it continues to lose very large amounts. With the model 3, they are now losing even more. The biggest question with Tesla is not how big it will get, but whether is will survive at all. Soon, the environmental rebates will cease. How will that affect their sales? That’s another question. The fact that they are already so far behind schedule has prompted Tesla to enter what has become a controversial practice of trying to upgrade model 3 prepaid customers to the sports model at twice the price, offering them an $8,000 rebate to do so, which leaves the base price $70,000 vehicle still much more expensive than the bae $35,000 vehicle, but which is angering the people who are buying the higher price product as their actual choice. All because they as so far behind in production, and QC.
so, yes, they screwed up. They thought they could accept $1,000 checks from people befor product was anywhere near ready to even start production, and had received over 400,000 checks, with the surety that they would receive their car in 2018. Now that it looks as though many won’t, there’s a lawsuit. And they continue to accept new $1,000 checks.
you sarcasm isn’t needed, or appreciated. What Dell said was an off the cuff remark made by an arrogant individual at the height of success for Dell, and the nadir of Apple’s fortunes. He was asked that question by a reporter. It has nothing to do with this issue.
tesla hasn’t gotten the scrutiny that you think it has, and every other car maker has received far more. That’s why Tesla’s stock is vastly overpriced when compared to far larger, and more successful manufacturers in the industry.
1) I have to assume this isn't the first time you've slammed Tesla and Musk for stating a goal and working to go after it, yet they've met their goals in the past. Did you say you were wrong then, or are you claiming that all their previous goals were doable but this current one will sink the company because it's impossible to meet?
2) The Michael Dell and anti-Apple pundit commits fit your narrative quite well.
3) You seem to have a deep seeded anger toward Musk. Why is that? Is this simply because they haven't adopted CarPlay, because he's successful, or something else? Amazon has spent most of its existence never turning a profit, and when they do it's barely in the black, yet I don't recall a single comment from you that Amazon was going to close up, biting off more than they can chew by expanding, or even a pejorative statement about Bezos.
Facts are biased, and are easily confirmed on the internet "yet they have met their goals in the past" is not the same as on time and at cost.
"Elon is King in the country of Moving Goalposts that the River Denial flows through", is not the same as "deep seated anger", so I'm guessing we're still cool?
OK, I seem to recall that Tesla was a week or so ahead of schedule for the first Model 3 rolling off the assembly line. What time-based goal post was conveniently moved there?
This makes no sense. This use would be so trivial as to be a complete waste of talent, time and money. If this is, instead just a way to get experience, then it could be useful, but the article doesn’t seem to be saying that.
i also have strong doubts that Apple could have a wide success with a real CarOS. There are several entrenched competitors in this field. And yes, I know that Apple has faced entrenched industries before. But it really needs to be remembered that Apple made its success in those industries with software based hardware, not just software. Why would car makers want Apple’s OS? If Apple is as restrictive about sending info back to the car makers as they are with other clients, such as the Ad agencies, then the car makers will have the same reaction. Which is to move away. And if Apple doesn’t, then Apple will lose its voice as the holder of privacy for its customers.
So without an actual vehicle for this OS effort, I don’t see it going anywhere, unless fleets take a shine to it, and that seems very un Apple-like.
Reading the article it seemed as though there were team members wanting to reinvent the automobile and then reality set in and Bob Mansfield was brought in to bring the project back down to earth. But I don’t see how it goes anywhere unless Apple eventually develops its own vehicle.
EDIT: John Gruber had his own take (which sounds like he might have heard some things from employees):
“Shelved” is an accurate word, but I think many people have interpreted it as meaning that Apple has given up on designing its own vehicles. My understanding is that it’s more like “Let’s get the autonomous shit down first, and worry about designing vehicles to put it in after that.” Eat the steak one bite at a time rather than all at once.
This makes the most sense. If you don’t have the software nailed there’s really no point to a car.
I can basically agree with that. But as someone who has developed a fair amount of hardware, and done software development as well, I can say that if you are intending to do a major hardware project, such as a car, you need years of lead time for the hardware. It’s been said that it would take Apple at least four years, and likely five, to develop a commercially viable vehicle.
the only thing I can think of is that if Apple is still intending to do that that it would be with a company such as Magna Steyr. Apple has been working with them, and has had a lot of their engineers on this project.
It bothers me when people compare this to Nokia and RIM and use that “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote. There is no comparison. Building an autonomous/self-driving vehicle is WAY more complicated than building a computer for your pocket.
You just used the “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote.
If it’s impossible for Apple then how is Tesla, Google, Uber and many others able to work on this? Why is t not possible for Apple, but possible for everyone else?
Google isn't building a car either Soli, realizing a couple years ago that partnering with automakers and looking into ride-sharing as a service was the better way to monetize it. I believe that's one reason why several automakers are suddenly willing to work with Google in the past year or so, not worrying so much anymore that they are positioning themselves as a competing carmaker.
If the industry sees Apple as trying to steal their customers and kill their business they'll stop cooperating with them. That they haven't seems evidence that the carmakers don't believe Apple still plans a car either and they'd probably know better than any of us since engineers and managers move around so much. Just my opinion of course, and mine holds no more weight than yours so feel free to ignore it.
I do t think that Google was ever interested in making a car for a very simple,e reason. Everything Google does, whether a service, a product they do themselves, or a company they buy, is devoted to getting user information that they can use for their advertisers. Everything. They don’t make their own phones or tablets, because the ROI on those is too low. So they hand them off to other companies who design them and make them. Google’s input is very minor except for native Android on the devices. They sell in small numbers, because they’re really not great devices, usually.
a car is far worse. There is no way they could ever retrieve their investments making cars. And that retrieval is mostly the customermdata they would derive from it. They are not a real hardware maker. The only successful hardware they make costs less than $50, and no doubt is sold for a loss.
but Apple is a hardware makers, one of the largest in the world. It’s where they lake their money from. App,EU knows hardware. They know when it’s too complex as well, as possibly this project is right now. They haven’t fully committed. We don’t know where they’re going with this long term, but both Williams and Cook have indicated their very serious interest.
i can’t see Apple developing autonomous software just for the purpose of selling it. That really makes no sense. Your last paragraph makes no sense either
Last paragraph makes no sense to you? And that's coming from a former business owner that no doubt had worked with outside companies when you were younger? Sure you understand it.
It makes no sense, because I was a business owner, and actually know how it works, as opposed to someone who apparently wasn’t a business owner, and so doesn’t know how it works.
in all industries, competing companies make parts and assemblies for direct competitors. I find it truly hard to believe that you don’t seem to be aware of that fact. Where have you been all this time? Don’t you know that Samsung will be selling Apple about $15 billion in parts next year? Oh wait, you’re right, they’re not in the same industry, and aren’t competitors in any areas.
Oh geez, are you now going to pretend you don't know the difference between a profitable mutually-beneficial business arrangement and one company actively trying to put the other out of business by making it unprofitable for them to continue? At the point auto manufacturers (or even ride-hailing companies) believe that Apple intends to compete with them and destroy their ability to make a profit they will not be cooperating with Apple, nor promoting Apple services.
There's a reason Apple is finding it to be a tough go making friends and forming partnerships in the movie and tv industry. Those companies have seen what happened in the past and are much less likely to cooperate with it happening again.
Oh please! Seriously, do you really understand any of this? I doubt it. You can make up arguments that make no sense, if you like, but still make no sense.
what are you even talking about?
this is really no argument from you at all. I don’t even know what it is.
Because, if you haven’t been following this, Tesla, unlike most other companies, has made a VERY big deal about increasing their manufacturing from about 50,000 cars a year, which they’ve had problems meeting, to 500,000 cars a year in 2018. Nobody in the industry believes that they can make that goal. Investors are blinded by Musk, as a personality, as many Apple users and investors had been over the years. The difference is that Apple’s goals were more easily achievable, because as they grew, they had the worlds larges contractors actually assemble their products.
tesla bought an old plant for this, and had to entirely gut it. But the time they got the plant half ready, they were already almost a year behind schedule. The model 3 also has had a lot of development problems, which are continuing. The batteries have been having serious manufacturing problems too. And the software has been soundly criticized.
the problem here is that Tesla has always lost very large amounts of money each year, and it continues to lose very large amounts. With the model 3, they are now losing even more. The biggest question with Tesla is not how big it will get, but whether is will survive at all. Soon, the environmental rebates will cease. How will that affect their sales? That’s another question. The fact that they are already so far behind schedule has prompted Tesla to enter what has become a controversial practice of trying to upgrade model 3 prepaid customers to the sports model at twice the price, offering them an $8,000 rebate to do so, which leaves the base price $70,000 vehicle still much more expensive than the bae $35,000 vehicle, but which is angering the people who are buying the higher price product as their actual choice. All because they as so far behind in production, and QC.
so, yes, they screwed up. They thought they could accept $1,000 checks from people befor product was anywhere near ready to even start production, and had received over 400,000 checks, with the surety that they would receive their car in 2018. Now that it looks as though many won’t, there’s a lawsuit. And they continue to accept new $1,000 checks.
you sarcasm isn’t needed, or appreciated. What Dell said was an off the cuff remark made by an arrogant individual at the height of success for Dell, and the nadir of Apple’s fortunes. He was asked that question by a reporter. It has nothing to do with this issue.
tesla hasn’t gotten the scrutiny that you think it has, and every other car maker has received far more. That’s why Tesla’s stock is vastly overpriced when compared to far larger, and more successful manufacturers in the industry.
1) I have to assume this isn't the first time you've slammed Tesla and Musk for stating a goal and working to go after it, yet they've met their goals in the past. Did you say you were wrong then, or are you claiming that all their previous goals were doable but this current one will sink the company because it's impossible to meet?
2) The Michael Dell and anti-Apple pundit commits fit your narrative quite well.
3) You seem to have a deep seeded anger toward Musk. Why is that? Is this simply because they haven't adopted CarPlay, because he's successful, or something else? Amazon has spent most of its existence never turning a profit, and when they do it's barely in the black, yet I don't recall a single comment from you that Amazon was going to close up, biting off more than they can chew by expanding, or even a pejorative statement about Bezos.
Facts are biased, and are easily confirmed on the internet "yet they have met their goals in the past" is not the same as on time and at cost.
"Elon is King in the country of Moving Goalposts that the River Denial flows through", is not the same as "deep seated anger", so I'm guessing we're still cool?
OK, I seem to recall that Tesla was a week or so ahead of schedule for the first Model 3 rolling off the assembly line. What time-based goal post was conveniently moved there?
So, you believe that Tesla will build 20,000 Model 3's a month in December, or will you fall back on Elon's supply chain disclaimers as an excuse for missing the "goalpost"?
Because, if you haven’t been following this, Tesla, unlike most other companies, has made a VERY big deal about increasing their manufacturing from about 50,000 cars a year, which they’ve had problems meeting, to 500,000 cars a year in 2018. Nobody in the industry believes that they can make that goal. Investors are blinded by Musk, as a personality, as many Apple users and investors had been over the years. The difference is that Apple’s goals were more easily achievable, because as they grew, they had the worlds larges contractors actually assemble their products.
tesla bought an old plant for this, and had to entirely gut it. But the time they got the plant half ready, they were already almost a year behind schedule. The model 3 also has had a lot of development problems, which are continuing. The batteries have been having serious manufacturing problems too. And the software has been soundly criticized.
the problem here is that Tesla has always lost very large amounts of money each year, and it continues to lose very large amounts. With the model 3, they are now losing even more. The biggest question with Tesla is not how big it will get, but whether is will survive at all. Soon, the environmental rebates will cease. How will that affect their sales? That’s another question. The fact that they are already so far behind schedule has prompted Tesla to enter what has become a controversial practice of trying to upgrade model 3 prepaid customers to the sports model at twice the price, offering them an $8,000 rebate to do so, which leaves the base price $70,000 vehicle still much more expensive than the bae $35,000 vehicle, but which is angering the people who are buying the higher price product as their actual choice. All because they as so far behind in production, and QC.
so, yes, they screwed up. They thought they could accept $1,000 checks from people befor product was anywhere near ready to even start production, and had received over 400,000 checks, with the surety that they would receive their car in 2018. Now that it looks as though many won’t, there’s a lawsuit. And they continue to accept new $1,000 checks.
you sarcasm isn’t needed, or appreciated. What Dell said was an off the cuff remark made by an arrogant individual at the height of success for Dell, and the nadir of Apple’s fortunes. He was asked that question by a reporter. It has nothing to do with this issue.
tesla hasn’t gotten the scrutiny that you think it has, and every other car maker has received far more. That’s why Tesla’s stock is vastly overpriced when compared to far larger, and more successful manufacturers in the industry.
1) I have to assume this isn't the first time you've slammed Tesla and Musk for stating a goal and working to go after it, yet they've met their goals in the past. Did you say you were wrong then, or are you claiming that all their previous goals were doable but this current one will sink the company because it's impossible to meet?
2) The Michael Dell and anti-Apple pundit commits fit your narrative quite well.
3) You seem to have a deep seeded anger toward Musk. Why is that? Is this simply because they haven't adopted CarPlay, because he's successful, or something else? Amazon has spent most of its existence never turning a profit, and when they do it's barely in the black, yet I don't recall a single comment from you that Amazon was going to close up, biting off more than they can chew by expanding, or even a pejorative statement about Bezos.
They have never met their goals. I’ve been following Tesla from the beginning. They’ve had serious problems with all models, and everything they built has been behind schedule, with many problems in the product for some time. They’ve also consistently lost large sums of money. They are not a new company anymore either.
bo, Dell is nothing at all. What he said is of no importance here, though you seem to want very badly to make it so.
my dislike of Musk is because he constantly trumpets himself in ways that have scores of people thinking that he’s more than he, or his companies are. And during all of that, I do give him credit for what he has done.
but he makes big statements that everyone gets behind, and argues like you are, that he knows what he doing, and then when he withdraws those statements, as it finally dawns on him that they are impossible, or, once he’s gotten the attention he wanted, people forget he ever said that. A good example are his various statements about how SpaceX is going to Mars, when they’re going, and how much it will cost. All of that has been retracted after much criticism. Even his new spacesuit was harder to make than necessary because he said that getting the functionality plus the styling took longer, and cost more. Styling, for a spacesuit? Seriously?
i give a damn about whether he adopts CarPlay or not. Whats wrong with you here? Why are you saying junk Ike that? Can’t you stay on point without making up arguments that don’t exist? You’re sounding like Gatorguy right now. That’s not a compliment.
i’ve said plentry about Bezos and Amazon over the years about their stock being worth 10% of what it is because his business plan has never worked, and won’t. It doesn’t come up that often here.
Because, if you haven’t been following this, Tesla, unlike most other companies, has made a VERY big deal about increasing their manufacturing from about 50,000 cars a year, which they’ve had problems meeting, to 500,000 cars a year in 2018. Nobody in the industry believes that they can make that goal. Investors are blinded by Musk, as a personality, as many Apple users and investors had been over the years. The difference is that Apple’s goals were more easily achievable, because as they grew, they had the worlds larges contractors actually assemble their products.
tesla bought an old plant for this, and had to entirely gut it. But the time they got the plant half ready, they were already almost a year behind schedule. The model 3 also has had a lot of development problems, which are continuing. The batteries have been having serious manufacturing problems too. And the software has been soundly criticized.
the problem here is that Tesla has always lost very large amounts of money each year, and it continues to lose very large amounts. With the model 3, they are now losing even more. The biggest question with Tesla is not how big it will get, but whether is will survive at all. Soon, the environmental rebates will cease. How will that affect their sales? That’s another question. The fact that they are already so far behind schedule has prompted Tesla to enter what has become a controversial practice of trying to upgrade model 3 prepaid customers to the sports model at twice the price, offering them an $8,000 rebate to do so, which leaves the base price $70,000 vehicle still much more expensive than the bae $35,000 vehicle, but which is angering the people who are buying the higher price product as their actual choice. All because they as so far behind in production, and QC.
so, yes, they screwed up. They thought they could accept $1,000 checks from people befor product was anywhere near ready to even start production, and had received over 400,000 checks, with the surety that they would receive their car in 2018. Now that it looks as though many won’t, there’s a lawsuit. And they continue to accept new $1,000 checks.
you sarcasm isn’t needed, or appreciated. What Dell said was an off the cuff remark made by an arrogant individual at the height of success for Dell, and the nadir of Apple’s fortunes. He was asked that question by a reporter. It has nothing to do with this issue.
tesla hasn’t gotten the scrutiny that you think it has, and every other car maker has received far more. That’s why Tesla’s stock is vastly overpriced when compared to far larger, and more successful manufacturers in the industry.
1) I have to assume this isn't the first time you've slammed Tesla and Musk for stating a goal and working to go after it, yet they've met their goals in the past. Did you say you were wrong then, or are you claiming that all their previous goals were doable but this current one will sink the company because it's impossible to meet?
2) The Michael Dell and anti-Apple pundit commits fit your narrative quite well.
3) You seem to have a deep seeded anger toward Musk. Why is that? Is this simply because they haven't adopted CarPlay, because he's successful, or something else? Amazon has spent most of its existence never turning a profit, and when they do it's barely in the black, yet I don't recall a single comment from you that Amazon was going to close up, biting off more than they can chew by expanding, or even a pejorative statement about Bezos.
Facts are biased, and are easily confirmed on the internet "yet they have met their goals in the past" is not the same as on time and at cost.
"Elon is King in the country of Moving Goalposts that the River Denial flows through", is not the same as "deep seated anger", so I'm guessing we're still cool?
OK, I seem to recall that Tesla was a week or so ahead of schedule for the first Model 3 rolling off the assembly line. What time-based goal post was conveniently moved there?
Since this is from Forbes, I hope that it will work if someone doesn’t have a membership, which is free, by the way;
Because, if you haven’t been following this, Tesla, unlike most other companies, has made a VERY big deal about increasing their manufacturing from about 50,000 cars a year, which they’ve had problems meeting, to 500,000 cars a year in 2018. Nobody in the industry believes that they can make that goal. Investors are blinded by Musk, as a personality, as many Apple users and investors had been over the years. The difference is that Apple’s goals were more easily achievable, because as they grew, they had the worlds larges contractors actually assemble their products.
tesla bought an old plant for this, and had to entirely gut it. But the time they got the plant half ready, they were already almost a year behind schedule. The model 3 also has had a lot of development problems, which are continuing. The batteries have been having serious manufacturing problems too. And the software has been soundly criticized.
the problem here is that Tesla has always lost very large amounts of money each year, and it continues to lose very large amounts. With the model 3, they are now losing even more. The biggest question with Tesla is not how big it will get, but whether is will survive at all. Soon, the environmental rebates will cease. How will that affect their sales? That’s another question. The fact that they are already so far behind schedule has prompted Tesla to enter what has become a controversial practice of trying to upgrade model 3 prepaid customers to the sports model at twice the price, offering them an $8,000 rebate to do so, which leaves the base price $70,000 vehicle still much more expensive than the bae $35,000 vehicle, but which is angering the people who are buying the higher price product as their actual choice. All because they as so far behind in production, and QC.
so, yes, they screwed up. They thought they could accept $1,000 checks from people befor product was anywhere near ready to even start production, and had received over 400,000 checks, with the surety that they would receive their car in 2018. Now that it looks as though many won’t, there’s a lawsuit. And they continue to accept new $1,000 checks.
you sarcasm isn’t needed, or appreciated. What Dell said was an off the cuff remark made by an arrogant individual at the height of success for Dell, and the nadir of Apple’s fortunes. He was asked that question by a reporter. It has nothing to do with this issue.
tesla hasn’t gotten the scrutiny that you think it has, and every other car maker has received far more. That’s why Tesla’s stock is vastly overpriced when compared to far larger, and more successful manufacturers in the industry.
1) I have to assume this isn't the first time you've slammed Tesla and Musk for stating a goal and working to go after it, yet they've met their goals in the past. Did you say you were wrong then, or are you claiming that all their previous goals were doable but this current one will sink the company because it's impossible to meet?
2) The Michael Dell and anti-Apple pundit commits fit your narrative quite well.
3) You seem to have a deep seeded anger toward Musk. Why is that? Is this simply because they haven't adopted CarPlay, because he's successful, or something else? Amazon has spent most of its existence never turning a profit, and when they do it's barely in the black, yet I don't recall a single comment from you that Amazon was going to close up, biting off more than they can chew by expanding, or even a pejorative statement about Bezos.
Facts are biased, and are easily confirmed on the internet "yet they have met their goals in the past" is not the same as on time and at cost.
"Elon is King in the country of Moving Goalposts that the River Denial flows through", is not the same as "deep seated anger", so I'm guessing we're still cool?
OK, I seem to recall that Tesla was a week or so ahead of schedule for the first Model 3 rolling off the assembly line. What time-based goal post was conveniently moved there?
Since this is from Forbes, I hope that it will work if someone doesn’t have a membership, which is free, by the way;
Because, if you haven’t been following this, Tesla, unlike most other companies, has made a VERY big deal about increasing their manufacturing from about 50,000 cars a year, which they’ve had problems meeting, to 500,000 cars a year in 2018. Nobody in the industry believes that they can make that goal. Investors are blinded by Musk, as a personality, as many Apple users and investors had been over the years. The difference is that Apple’s goals were more easily achievable, because as they grew, they had the worlds larges contractors actually assemble their products.
tesla bought an old plant for this, and had to entirely gut it. But the time they got the plant half ready, they were already almost a year behind schedule. The model 3 also has had a lot of development problems, which are continuing. The batteries have been having serious manufacturing problems too. And the software has been soundly criticized.
the problem here is that Tesla has always lost very large amounts of money each year, and it continues to lose very large amounts. With the model 3, they are now losing even more. The biggest question with Tesla is not how big it will get, but whether is will survive at all. Soon, the environmental rebates will cease. How will that affect their sales? That’s another question. The fact that they are already so far behind schedule has prompted Tesla to enter what has become a controversial practice of trying to upgrade model 3 prepaid customers to the sports model at twice the price, offering them an $8,000 rebate to do so, which leaves the base price $70,000 vehicle still much more expensive than the bae $35,000 vehicle, but which is angering the people who are buying the higher price product as their actual choice. All because they as so far behind in production, and QC.
so, yes, they screwed up. They thought they could accept $1,000 checks from people befor product was anywhere near ready to even start production, and had received over 400,000 checks, with the surety that they would receive their car in 2018. Now that it looks as though many won’t, there’s a lawsuit. And they continue to accept new $1,000 checks.
you sarcasm isn’t needed, or appreciated. What Dell said was an off the cuff remark made by an arrogant individual at the height of success for Dell, and the nadir of Apple’s fortunes. He was asked that question by a reporter. It has nothing to do with this issue.
tesla hasn’t gotten the scrutiny that you think it has, and every other car maker has received far more. That’s why Tesla’s stock is vastly overpriced when compared to far larger, and more successful manufacturers in the industry.
1) I have to assume this isn't the first time you've slammed Tesla and Musk for stating a goal and working to go after it, yet they've met their goals in the past. Did you say you were wrong then, or are you claiming that all their previous goals were doable but this current one will sink the company because it's impossible to meet?
2) The Michael Dell and anti-Apple pundit commits fit your narrative quite well.
3) You seem to have a deep seeded anger toward Musk. Why is that? Is this simply because they haven't adopted CarPlay, because he's successful, or something else? Amazon has spent most of its existence never turning a profit, and when they do it's barely in the black, yet I don't recall a single comment from you that Amazon was going to close up, biting off more than they can chew by expanding, or even a pejorative statement about Bezos.
Whats wrong with you here? You’re sounding like Gatorguy right now. That’s not a compliment.
"Some sought to build the software off Apple's Swift programming language, while others wanted to employ C++."
No freaking way was THAT a debate. Was Fortran the 3rd contender?
I don't know enough about either language to know if this could be a real debate—unlike the previous internal challenge to grow the iPod's Pico(?) OS into the Apple tablet OS that eventually became the iPhone or to reduce macOS nee Mac OS X—but my gut reaction is that C++ over Swift is odd. The only way that makes any sense to me is if Apple has bought a well developed system that is built off a comprehensive C++ codebase.
One thing that was often referenced with Blackberry buying QNX is that it was a "true" realtime OS that was in nearly all automobiles. It looks like it built using C, C++, Embedded C++, and/or Java. Does anyone know what Tesla uses?
However, people in that field would be more familiar with C++ and would have some advantages with having more control over data structures with pointers (can be done in Swift but it hides it by default) as well as interacting with APIs for 3rd party hardware (sensors etc). When dealing with large amounts of data in a real-time system, it's best to process it as fast and efficiently as possible:
Modern languages like Swift are designed for higher-level tasks where thinking about memory management slows down the development. For systems-level development, Swift could slow it down, especially for people unfamiliar with it.
These arguments should be resolved pretty quickly though by doing tests with both and listing all the advantages of each. C++ is the obvious choice as it is already tried and tested in this field so Swift has to prove itself. If Swift works ok in testing then go with it as it will work better with Apple's higher-level APIs and should lead to safer code that is faster to develop and maintain, which is important in vehicle control.
I think running the trials on their campus is a good idea just like they have employees testing iPhones. It gives them real-world data and scenarios to adapt to. They can use it in their new campus to get from one side to another, mostly by going across the middle of the park like little golf carts (it's ~0.5km across) and the carts can drive back to the charging bays. It would be good for high profile visitors to ride around in them. Scaling it up for commuting for their employees on real-world roads would be the next step and they'd use 3rd party vehicles.
I don't see why there would need to be disarray behind the scenes. They can do the project in separate parts (base with control, upper body with design) and have multiple teams for each. 1000 engineers on $100k is $100m/year. Hire 3 separate teams and have them build different projects then pick the one that works the best or take the best of each project. Even if they don't sell a vehicle to consumers, delivery and taxi services need vehicles:
Someone has to buy vehicles from a manufacturer at some point so either Apple would be buying them to use as a service or they'd have to license their software for use in a vehicle bought by another company or they'd do it all themselves and sell the product and service together. The latter is usually the route they go but it doesn't have to be here and they can go multiple routes.
Because, if you haven’t been following this, Tesla, unlike most other companies, has made a VERY big deal about increasing their manufacturing from about 50,000 cars a year, which they’ve had problems meeting, to 500,000 cars a year in 2018. Nobody in the industry believes that they can make that goal. Investors are blinded by Musk, as a personality, as many Apple users and investors had been over the years. The difference is that Apple’s goals were more easily achievable, because as they grew, they had the worlds larges contractors actually assemble their products.
tesla bought an old plant for this, and had to entirely gut it. But the time they got the plant half ready, they were already almost a year behind schedule. The model 3 also has had a lot of development problems, which are continuing. The batteries have been having serious manufacturing problems too. And the software has been soundly criticized.
the problem here is that Tesla has always lost very large amounts of money each year, and it continues to lose very large amounts. With the model 3, they are now losing even more. The biggest question with Tesla is not how big it will get, but whether is will survive at all. Soon, the environmental rebates will cease. How will that affect their sales? That’s another question. The fact that they are already so far behind schedule has prompted Tesla to enter what has become a controversial practice of trying to upgrade model 3 prepaid customers to the sports model at twice the price, offering them an $8,000 rebate to do so, which leaves the base price $70,000 vehicle still much more expensive than the bae $35,000 vehicle, but which is angering the people who are buying the higher price product as their actual choice. All because they as so far behind in production, and QC.
so, yes, they screwed up. They thought they could accept $1,000 checks from people befor product was anywhere near ready to even start production, and had received over 400,000 checks, with the surety that they would receive their car in 2018. Now that it looks as though many won’t, there’s a lawsuit. And they continue to accept new $1,000 checks.
you sarcasm isn’t needed, or appreciated. What Dell said was an off the cuff remark made by an arrogant individual at the height of success for Dell, and the nadir of Apple’s fortunes. He was asked that question by a reporter. It has nothing to do with this issue.
tesla hasn’t gotten the scrutiny that you think it has, and every other car maker has received far more. That’s why Tesla’s stock is vastly overpriced when compared to far larger, and more successful manufacturers in the industry.
1) I have to assume this isn't the first time you've slammed Tesla and Musk for stating a goal and working to go after it, yet they've met their goals in the past. Did you say you were wrong then, or are you claiming that all their previous goals were doable but this current one will sink the company because it's impossible to meet?
2) The Michael Dell and anti-Apple pundit commits fit your narrative quite well.
3) You seem to have a deep seeded anger toward Musk. Why is that? Is this simply because they haven't adopted CarPlay, because he's successful, or something else? Amazon has spent most of its existence never turning a profit, and when they do it's barely in the black, yet I don't recall a single comment from you that Amazon was going to close up, biting off more than they can chew by expanding, or even a pejorative statement about Bezos.
Whats wrong with you here? You’re sounding like Gatorguy right now. That’s not a compliment.
OK, I seem to recall that Tesla was a week or so ahead of schedule for the first Model 3 rolling off the assembly line. What time-based goal post was conveniently moved there?
So, you believe that Tesla will build 20,000 Model 3's a month in December, or will you fall back on Elon's supply chain disclaimers as an excuse for missing the "goalpost"?
How wide a miss will Tesla be allowed?
You made a claim and I asked you about the most recent claim with a time that past so you can point out where Musk had moved the goal posts. Instead you make a Son-Like claim about the future. I'm curious if you (and melgross) have also said that Apple is about to collapse under itself after it keeps missing its own self-imposed deadlines*. I doubt it.
OK, I seem to recall that Tesla was a week or so ahead of schedule for the first Model 3 rolling off the assembly line. What time-based goal post was conveniently moved there?
So, you believe that Tesla will build 20,000 Model 3's a month in December, or will you fall back on Elon's supply chain disclaimers as an excuse for missing the "goalpost"?
How wide a miss will Tesla be allowed?
You made a claim and I asked you about the most recent claim with a time that past so you can point out where Musk had moved the goal posts. Instead you make a Son-Like claim about the future. I'm curious if you (and melgross) have also said that Apple is about to collapse under itself after it keeps missing its own self-imposed deadlines*. I doubt it.
Meeting a delivery schedule in July for 30 Model 3's seems to be the last goal post he met, but what about the target of 1500 in September, or how about the 20,000 a month by the end of the year?
Do you really think that he will meet those targets?
OK, I seem to recall that Tesla was a week or so ahead of schedule for the first Model 3 rolling off the assembly line. What time-based goal post was conveniently moved there?
So, you believe that Tesla will build 20,000 Model 3's a month in December, or will you fall back on Elon's supply chain disclaimers as an excuse for missing the "goalpost"?
How wide a miss will Tesla be allowed?
You made a claim and I asked you about the most recent claim with a time that past so you can point out where Musk had moved the goal posts. Instead you make a Son-Like claim about the future. I'm curious if you (and melgross) have also said that Apple is about to collapse under itself after it keeps missing its own self-imposed deadlines*. I doubt it.
Meeting a delivery schedule in July for 30 Model 3's seems to be the last goal post he met, but what about the target of 1500 in September, or how about the 20,000 a month by the end of the year?
Do you really think that he will meet those targets?
I don't.
What part of not making wild claims about the future don't you understand? Just as Apple misses self imposed deadlines and I don't take time of death (but the pundits do), I'm not going to do the same for Tesla because you say you don't think it's possible for them to hit a "target of 1500 in September." I don't care if they hit 1000, 1499, or 2000 next month. None of those numbers means the company is going under, that Tesla is a scam, and Musk is a shyster fleecing stockholders.
You people have been prognosticating Tesla's doom since the day it was founded yet they keep making more cars. You literally sound exactly like the people that come here saying Apple is doomed.
Comments
in all industries, competing companies make parts and assemblies for direct competitors. I find it truly hard to believe that you don’t seem to be aware of that fact. Where have you been all this time? Don’t you know that Samsung will be selling Apple about $15 billion in parts next year? Oh wait, you’re right, they’re not in the same industry, and aren’t competitors in any areas.
https://cleantechnica.com/2015/02/20/nissan-says-ready-end-federal-tax-credits/
People love Elon's story, and the brand awareness is astronomical, but I'm not sure that even current Tesla owners will be so forgiving of Elon if he doesn't deliver on time, and doesn't produce a reliable product, all past problems that early adopters were more than happy to absorb.
I have no interest in a Tesla purchase or of stock ownership, but Tesla is a big part of our overheated economy in Northern Nevada, so as a naysayer, I would say to Tesla, "get your shit together:"
So, this is one of the naysayers that I follow...
https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer
and one more
http://dailykanban.com/2016/06/tesla-suspension-breakage-not-crime-coverup/
Because, if you haven’t been following this, Tesla, unlike most other companies, has made a VERY big deal about increasing their manufacturing from about 50,000 cars a year, which they’ve had problems meeting, to 500,000 cars a year in 2018. Nobody in the industry believes that they can make that goal. Investors are blinded by Musk, as a personality, as many Apple users and investors had been over the years. The difference is that Apple’s goals were more easily achievable, because as they grew, they had the worlds larges contractors actually assemble their products.
tesla bought an old plant for this, and had to entirely gut it. But the time they got the plant half ready, they were already almost a year behind schedule. The model 3 also has had a lot of development problems, which are continuing. The batteries have been having serious manufacturing problems too. And the software has been soundly criticized.
the problem here is that Tesla has always lost very large amounts of money each year, and it continues to lose very large amounts. With the model 3, they are now losing even more. The biggest question with Tesla is not how big it will get, but whether is will survive at all. Soon, the environmental rebates will cease. How will that affect their sales? That’s another question. The fact that they are already so far behind schedule has prompted Tesla to enter what has become a controversial practice of trying to upgrade model 3 prepaid customers to the sports model at twice the price, offering them an $8,000 rebate to do so, which leaves the base price $70,000 vehicle still much more expensive than the bae $35,000 vehicle, but which is angering the people who are buying the higher price product as their actual choice. All because they as so far behind in production, and QC.
so, yes, they screwed up. They thought they could accept $1,000 checks from people befor product was anywhere near ready to even start production, and had received over 400,000 checks, with the surety that they would receive their car in 2018. Now that it looks as though many won’t, there’s a lawsuit. And they continue to accept new $1,000 checks.
you sarcasm isn’t needed, or appreciated. What Dell said was an off the cuff remark made by an arrogant individual at the height of success for Dell, and the nadir of Apple’s fortunes. He was asked that question by a reporter. It has nothing to do with this issue.
tesla hasn’t gotten the scrutiny that you think it has, and every other car maker has received far more. That’s why Tesla’s stock is vastly overpriced when compared to far larger, and more successful manufacturers in the industry.
How well, exactly, has Tesla done? What are their sales and profits, for example? And compared to what?
There's a reason Apple is finding it to be a tough go making friends and forming partnerships in the movie and tv industry. Those companies have seen what happened in the past and are much less likely to cooperate with it happening again.
2) The Michael Dell and anti-Apple pundit commits fit your narrative quite well.
3) You seem to have a deep seeded anger toward Musk. Why is that? Is this simply because they haven't adopted CarPlay, because he's successful, or something else? Amazon has spent most of its existence never turning a profit, and when they do it's barely in the black, yet I don't recall a single comment from you that Amazon was going to close up, biting off more than they can chew by expanding, or even a pejorative statement about Bezos.
"Elon is King in the country of Moving Goalposts that the River Denial flows through", is not the same as "deep seated anger", so I'm guessing we're still cool?
what are you even talking about?
this is really no argument from you at all. I don’t even know what it is.
How wide a miss will Tesla be allowed?
bo, Dell is nothing at all. What he said is of no importance here, though you seem to want very badly to make it so.
my dislike of Musk is because he constantly trumpets himself in ways that have scores of people thinking that he’s more than he, or his companies are. And during all of that, I do give him credit for what he has done.
but he makes big statements that everyone gets behind, and argues like you are, that he knows what he doing, and then when he withdraws those statements, as it finally dawns on him that they are impossible, or, once he’s gotten the attention he wanted, people forget he ever said that. A good example are his various statements about how SpaceX is going to Mars, when they’re going, and how much it will cost. All of that has been retracted after much criticism. Even his new spacesuit was harder to make than necessary because he said that getting the functionality plus the styling took longer, and cost more. Styling, for a spacesuit? Seriously?
i give a damn about whether he adopts CarPlay or not. Whats wrong with you here? Why are you saying junk Ike that? Can’t you stay on point without making up arguments that don’t exist? You’re sounding like Gatorguy right now. That’s not a compliment.
i’ve said plentry about Bezos and Amazon over the years about their stock being worth 10% of what it is because his business plan has never worked, and won’t. It doesn’t come up that often here.
Since this is from Forbes, I hope that it will work if someone doesn’t have a membership, which is free, by the way;
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2017/07/09/is-teslas-ceo-model-3-production-ramp-another-overpromise/#7abf9ef2140f
you can read this one too.
http://blog.grabcad.com/blog/2017/07/19/can-tesla-ramp-model-3-production-time/
Really, there are so many articles about problems at Tesla, it’s hard to get away from them.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20170815/BLOG06/170819883/why-this-tesla-fan-thinks-the-company-is-losing-its-way?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
https://www.tesla.com/careers/job/autopilot-softwareengineer-37065
"Strong C/C++ coding experience in a Linux platform.
I could see there being a debate over Swift/C++ because Swift is designed as a systems language and can interact with C code:
https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/BuildingCocoaApps/InteractingWithCAPIs.html
However, people in that field would be more familiar with C++ and would have some advantages with having more control over data structures with pointers (can be done in Swift but it hides it by default) as well as interacting with APIs for 3rd party hardware (sensors etc). When dealing with large amounts of data in a real-time system, it's best to process it as fast and efficiently as possible:
https://www.networkworld.com/article/3147892/internet/one-autonomous-car-will-use-4000-gb-of-dataday.html
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24101718/swift-performance-sorting-arrays
Modern languages like Swift are designed for higher-level tasks where thinking about memory management slows down the development. For systems-level development, Swift could slow it down, especially for people unfamiliar with it.
These arguments should be resolved pretty quickly though by doing tests with both and listing all the advantages of each. C++ is the obvious choice as it is already tried and tested in this field so Swift has to prove itself. If Swift works ok in testing then go with it as it will work better with Apple's higher-level APIs and should lead to safer code that is faster to develop and maintain, which is important in vehicle control.
I think running the trials on their campus is a good idea just like they have employees testing iPhones. It gives them real-world data and scenarios to adapt to. They can use it in their new campus to get from one side to another, mostly by going across the middle of the park like little golf carts (it's ~0.5km across) and the carts can drive back to the charging bays. It would be good for high profile visitors to ride around in them. Scaling it up for commuting for their employees on real-world roads would be the next step and they'd use 3rd party vehicles.
I don't see why there would need to be disarray behind the scenes. They can do the project in separate parts (base with control, upper body with design) and have multiple teams for each. 1000 engineers on $100k is $100m/year. Hire 3 separate teams and have them build different projects then pick the one that works the best or take the best of each project. Even if they don't sell a vehicle to consumers, delivery and taxi services need vehicles:
https://electrek.co/2016/03/18/uber-order-mercedes-100000-autonomous-cars/
Someone has to buy vehicles from a manufacturer at some point so either Apple would be buying them to use as a service or they'd have to license their software for use in a vehicle bought by another company or they'd do it all themselves and sell the product and service together. The latter is usually the route they go but it doesn't have to be here and they can go multiple routes.
PS: Thanks for the compliment, @melgross.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/tesla-falls-as-quarterly-deliveries-trail-analysts-estimates
Do you have a response to that?
Meeting a delivery schedule in July for 30 Model 3's seems to be the last goal post he met, but what about the target of 1500 in September, or how about the 20,000 a month by the end of the year?
Do you really think that he will meet those targets?
I don't.
You people have been prognosticating Tesla's doom since the day it was founded yet they keep making more cars. You literally sound exactly like the people that come here saying Apple is doomed.